Groups Similar Look up By Text Browse About

Similar articles
Article Id Title Prob Score Similar Compare
116650 TECHCRUNCH 2019-1-10:
Advisor to Europe’s top court favors regional limit to ‘right to be forgotten’
1.000 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116739 VENTUREBEAT 2019-1-10:
Google can limit ‘right to be forgotten’ to EU countries
0.974 0.776 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116656 ENGADGET 2019-1-10:
EU courts told 'right to be forgotten' law should not apply globally
0.982 0.760 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116466 TECHCRUNCH 2019-1-9:
A simple bug makes it easy to spoof Google search results into spreading misinformation
0.003 0.400 Find similar Compare side-by-side
117080 ARSTECHNICA 2019-1-14:
Feds forcing mass fingerprint unlocks is an “abuse of power,” judge rules
0.392 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116421 TECHCRUNCH 2019-1-9:
Cambridge Analytica’s parent pleads guilty to breaking UK data law
0.391 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116277 VENTUREBEAT 2019-1-9:
Google makes it easier to resume previous searches
0.374 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116482 ENGADGET 2019-1-9:
Cambridge Analytica parent company fined for violating UK data law
0.369 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116382 THEVERGE 2019-1-9:
Google launches new search feature for easier long-term research
0.362 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116564 TECHREPUBLIC 2019-1-10:
Google makes it easier to pick up past searches
0.349 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116417 ENGADGET 2019-1-9:
Google activity cards now help you find previous searches
0.341 Find similar Compare side-by-side
115589 ARSTECHNICA 2019-1-8:
Court: Politicians who block citizens on social media violate 1st Amendment
0.320 Find similar Compare side-by-side
115804 TECHCRUNCH 2019-1-7:
DuckDuckGo: No, we’re not using browser fingerprinting to track you
0.319 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116567 TECHCRUNCH 2019-1-10:
Shareholder suit alleges Google covered up its sexual harassment problems with big payouts
0.312 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116749 THEVERGE 2019-1-11:
Shareholder lawsuits over sexual harassment are putting Google executives on the defensive
0.311 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116676 TECHCRUNCH 2019-1-10:
Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it suggests it
0.306 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116103 THENEXTWEB 2019-1-8:
Amelia Earhart would have a hard time disappearing in 2019
0.290 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116583 THEVERGE 2019-1-10:
Wikipedia is using Google Translate to make its articles available in more languages
0.288 Find similar Compare side-by-side
117102 THENEXTWEB 2019-1-14:
Why data privacy is hot and machine learning is not
0.286 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116026 THEVERGE 2019-1-8:
German student reportedly confesses to leaking hundreds of politicians’ private data
0.285 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116021 ENGADGET 2019-1-8:
It's way too easy for bounty hunters to get your phone location data
0.284 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116513 THEVERGE 2019-1-10:
Shareholders file lawsuit against Google over payouts to executives accused of sexual harassment
0.283 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116252 VENTUREBEAT 2019-1-9:
As Brexit looms, TransferWise seeks EU payments license in Brussels
0.279 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116618 ENGADGET 2019-1-10:
Google Translate will help Wikipedia fill its non-English websites
0.278 Find similar Compare side-by-side
116926 ENGADGET 2019-1-13:
YouTube searches for 'RBG' led to slew of bogus conspiracy videos
0.275 Find similar Compare side-by-side


ID: 116650


Date: 2019-01-10

Advisor to Europe’s top court favors regional limit to ‘right to be forgotten’

Google will be cheered by the view of an influential advisor to Europes top court vis-à-vis the territorial scope of the so-called Right to be Forgotten. Since a 2014 Court of Justice decision, search engines operating in Europe have been required to accept and review requests from private citizens to delist outdated or irrelevant search results associated with their name, balancing decisions against any public right to know. Google has been carrying out these delistings on regional European subdomains, rather than globally. But in 2016, the French data protection agency, CNIL, fined it for failing to delist results globally — arguing that regional delistings were not strong enough to comply with the law. Google filed an appeal against the CNILs order for global delisting and a French court later decided to refer questions vis-à-vis the scope of the rtbf to the Court of Justice of the EU. The CJEU heard the case last fall, with Google arguing that global delistings would damage free speech, and enable authoritarian regimes to get stuff they dont like scrubbed off the internet. On the flip side, those who advocate for global delistings argue that without them theres a trivial workaround to the rtbf. The intent of the rtbf ruling was never to remove information from the internet but rather to allow old and erroneous data to sediment (rather than be artificially kept in public view by algorithms). And given most web users dont look past the first page (or even the first few), search results regional delistings seems a fair enough balance — at least as things stand. That balanced view is also now the published opinion of an influential advisor to Europes top court. Advocate general Maciej Szpunars opinion, released today — ahead of the court making its own judgement on the matter — proposes that the regional rtbf should be limited in scope to local sub-domains, rather than being applied globally as the French data protection agency has been advocating for several years. In a press release summarizing the AGs opinion, the court writes that Szpunar believes a distinction must be made depending on the location from which the search is performed and that [h]e is therefore not in favour of giving the provisions of EU law such a broad interpretation that they would have effects beyond the borders of the 28 Member States.[I]f worldwide de-referencing were permitted, the EU authorities would not be able to define and determine a right to receive information, let alone balance it against the other fundamental rights to data protection and to privacy, it continues. This is all the more so since such a public interest in accessing information will necessarily vary from one third State to another depending on its geographic location. There would be a risk, if worldwide de-referencing were possible, that persons in third States would be prevented from accessing information and, in turn, that third States would prevent persons in the EU Member States from accessing information. That said, the AG is not ruling out the possibility that in certain situations a search engine operator may need to delist something at the worldwide level. Rather, the court emphasizes, he takes the view that the situation at issue in the present case does not justify this. So his current advice to the court is summarized as follows: … the search engine operator is not required, when acceding to a request for de-referencing, to carry out that de-referencing on all the domain names of its search engine in such a way that the links in question no longer appear, irrespective of the location from which the search on the basis of the requesting partys name is performed. At the same time, the AG emphasizes that — for valid requests — search engines must take every measure available to it to ensure full and effective de-referencing within the EU, including by use of the geo-blocking technique, in respect of an IP address deemed to be located in one of the Member States, irrespective of the domain name used by the internet user who performs the search. While the AGs opinion is not binding on the CJEU, the court tends to take a similar view, so its a good indicator of where the final judgement will land, likely in three to six months time. We reached out to Google for comment and a spokesperson emailed us the following statement, attributed to Peter Fleischer, its senior privacy counsel: Public access to information, and the right to privacy, are important to people all around the world, as demonstrated by the number of global human rights, media and other organisations that have made their views known in this case. Weve worked hard to ensure that the right to be forgotten is effective for Europeans, including using geolocation to ensure 99% effectiveness. The search giant, which remains massively dominant in the European market, publishes a report detailing the proportion of requests it accepts and declines here, which shows both a steady growth in requests and that Google continues to grant only a minority of delisting requests. Since the original 2014 rtbf decision, the EU has doubled down on the right — extending the principle by baking it into an updated data protection framework, the GDPR, which came into force in May last year and gives EU citizens rights to ask data controllers to rectify or delete their personal information.