Skip to main content

Recently, the EU made a ruling requiring Google to take down links to incriminating information upon the request of a certain party. If an EU resident requests that they take down embarrassing information, then Google is now required to comply. This does not apply to newspapers.

This ruling pits free speech against privacy. On the one hand, Google argues that they have the free speech right to organize their search engine however they want to. But on the other hand:

The ruling was based on a case brought by a Spanish man against a newspaper and Google. He argued that searching for his name led to two pages originally published in 1998 on the website of the newspaper, La Vanguardia, about his debts and the forced sale of his home. The Spanish Data Protection Agency did not require the newspaper to take down the pages, but it ordered Google to remove links to them.
This was a link to a private person who had debts and legal troubles that ended 15 years ago. No reasonable person can argue that this information is relevant now. And yet, when you apply for employment, you are frequently required to sign a statement authorizing the potential employer to investigate your history.

The New York Times Editorial Board concludes:

The desire to allow individuals to erase data that they no longer wish to disclose is understandable. For example, there are good reasons to let people remove embarrassing photos and posts they published on social media as children or young adults. But lawmakers should not create a right so powerful that it could limit press freedoms or allow individuals to demand that lawful information in a news archive be hidden.
Both free speech and privacy are rights that are protected under our Constitution. The First Amendment says that Congress shall not infringe on the right to freedom of speech or freedom of the press. But it has often been held that where there is a rule that is narrowly written to fulfill a compelling public interest, then that would be permissible. For instance, you can't lie in court. That is a law that is specifically written to fulfill the compelling public interest of producing truthful and accurate testimony.

The only reason that privacy is not in the Constitution has to do with the English language. Back in those days, privacy had to do with toilet functions, and was not a word to be used in polite society, as Thom Hartmann notes:

The reason is simple: "privacy" in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, "I need a moment of privacy" as a way of excusing themselves to go use the "privy" or outhouse. The chamberpots around the house, into which people relieved themselves during the evening and which were emptied in the morning, were referred to as "the privates," a phrase also used to describe genitals. Privacy, in short, was a word that wasn't generally used in political discourse or polite company during an era when women were expected to cover their arms and legs and discussion of bedroom behavior was unthinkable.

It wasn't until 1898 that Thomas Crapper began marketing the flush toilet and discussion of toilet functions became relatively acceptable. Prior to then, saying somebody had a "right to privacy" would have meant "a right to excrete." This was, of course, a right that was taken for granted and thus the Framers felt no need to specify it in the Constitution.

Instead, the word of the day was "security," and in many ways it meant what we today mean when we say "privacy." Consider, for example, the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

Similarly, "liberty" was also understood, in one of its dimensions, to mean something close to what today we'd call "privacy." The Fifth Amendment talks about how "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property..." and the Fourteenth Amendment adds that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...." And, of course, the Declaration of Independence itself proclaims that all "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The ruling, of course, does not apply to Americans; however, it could have implications down the road. As the NYT editorial notes, there is little direction given as to how far back something has to go before someone could demand that embarrassing information be removed. One possible outcome is that some companies might decide that anyone, including US residents, would have the right to request the takedown of incriminating information. After all, if a policy has to apply to one person, then the only fair thing is for it to apply to everyone. Another possible outcome is a distinction between public and private figures. For instance, if someone is a private figure, they might have the right to protect themselves against events in their past, which would have no bearing on their job performance, from getting them denied a job. But if someone decides to make themselves a public figure, then by definition, they would risk this sort of scrutiny. Paradoxically, the man who was seeking to protect his privacy may have opened himself to much more scrutiny than he would have if he hadn't have filed suit.

And while the NSA was not mentioned in the ruling, it may very well be that this ruling, made against an American company, is blowback against the NSA's spying on our European allies. After all, if the NSA is going to spy on people who are supposed to be our allies, then it is only fair, in many peoples' minds, that the EU take all the steps it can to protect peoples' privacy. If this is the case, then we may see more rulings of this nature in the future.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    p gorden lippy, Gooserock, FG, Sandino

    "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

    by Eternal Hope on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:03:46 PM PDT

  •  The Obvious Question Is What About People Who (0+ / 0-)

    become public persons in their 40's, 60's or whatever.

    In some cases their activities and records from decades earlier could become important for society to know, years after it was right and just that those records disappeared due to them being private persons.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:06:54 PM PDT

    •  No problem (0+ / 0-)

      The ruling does not mean that the article (for example) has to be removed from the newspaper's site. It means Google must no longer publish a link to it.

      I wrote a diary explaining the decision and putting it in context yesterday.

      In the case of public persons, this ruling does not apply and there is a test of relevancy so the effect would not be to protect corrupt individuals seeking public office.

      The relevant provisions are in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU established by the Lisbon treaty. Section 8 gives the right to the protection of personal data and specifically in sub-section 2:

      Such [personal] data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law.

      "Come to Sochi, visit the gay clubs and play with the bears" - NOT a Russian advertising slogan.

      by Lib Dem FoP on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:12:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The real question is whether Google has the right (0+ / 0-)

    to publish all information about individuals, or do individuals have a right to control what information about themselves can be made public.
       I think that the right of individuals to privacy is a greater good than Google's right to exploit data about individuals.
      The public figure stuff can be resolved later.
       

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site