Ανακοίνωση της Google για το «δικαίωμα στη λήθη»

[baskin]

Δεν τόσο θέμα σύγκλισης. Έχουμε αρχές και έχουμε και Θέσεις. Αν βασιστούμε απλά σε αυτές μπορούμε να βγάλουμε μια ανακοίνωση. (βλ. στο pad)

Δεν είναι τόσο ξεκάθαρο... θα πρέπει να περάσει από LQFB.

[Κομπειλάδας]

Επειδή μου κάνει κορδελάκια το titanpads, το έβαλα σε ένα δικό μας: https://pads.pirateparty.gr/p/to_dikaioma_stin_lithi

[baskin]

Παπαρίας η συνέχεια...

http://boingboing.net/2014/07/15/indexi ... g+Boing%29

[Petros]

streisand effect

[Κομπειλάδας]

& Slovenian defect:

Slovenia: Data retention unconstitutional, deletion of data ordered
European Digital Rights (EDRi) Protecting digital freedom, 16 Jul 2014, By Guest author

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia abrogated the data retention provisions of the Act on Electronic Communications (ZEKom-1) in its judgement U-I-65/13-19 of 3 July 2014 following the constitutional request lodged by the Information Commissioner in March 2013 and ECJ judgment of 8 April 2014 in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12.

The Court abrogated ZEKom-1 articles 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 in 169 and instructed operators of electronic communications to delete retained data immediately after the judgment is published in the Official Gazette. The Court holds data retention as disproportionate for the following reasons:
unselective retention of data iconstitutes a breach of rights of a large proportion of population that did not provide any reason tj justify such this; – blanket data retention does not provide for anonymous use of communications, which is particularly important in cases where untraceable use is necessary (e.g. calling for help in mental distress);
arguments for the selected retention periods (8 months for internet related and 14 months for telephony related data) were not provided nor explained in the legislative preparatory documents;
the use of retained data was not limited to serious crime.

The Slovenian Information Commissioner Nataša Pirc Musar welcomed the ruling and sees it as an important step in protection of the right to privacy and data protection. The Court recognised the importance of personal data protection in relation to the use of modern information and communication technologies, particularly when used by law enforcement as repressive bodies of the state.

The Commissioner has been regularly warning about the problems of major breaches of privacy by law enforcement created by introduction of surveillance technologies. These tend to be used indiscriminately on large proportions of population, thereby encroaching on their right to privacy and data protection. The availability of new technologies such as drones, IMSI catchers and similar has, in several cases, led to requests by the police to the Ministry of Justice to legislate their use and to provide legal grounds enabling their deployment. Unfortunately these requests have often not been backed by sufficient assessments as regards their impact on human rights. In order to allow for transparency and to ensure that new law enforcement powers respect the principles of necessity and proportionality, the Commissioner has issued guidelines on privacy impact assessments (PIA) for the introduction of new police measures, representing a methodological framework for a prudent, reasonable and legitimate introduction of new measures.

The Information Commissioner Pirc Musar emphasised that this is one of her most important achievements during her 10-year mandate which is now ending. The decision of the Court represents an important part in the debate about the necessity and proportionality of the use of surveillance measures and technologies in the context of law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Request to the Constitutional Court (only in Slovenian)
https://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/ocene_ustavnosti/ZEKom_-_Zahteva_za_oceno_ustavnosti__data_retention_.pdf

Decision of the Constitutional Court (only in Slovenian, 03.07.2014)
https://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/sodbe/US_RS_ZEKom-1_3julij2014.tif

Electronic Communications Act (ZEKom-1)
http://www.akos-rs.si/acts

Information Commissioner of the Republic of Slovenia (only in Slovenian)
https://www.ip-rs.si/

Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) Guidelines for the Introduction of new Police Powers
https://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/smernice/PIA_guideliness_for_introduction_of_new_police_powers_english.pdf

(Contribution by Andrej Tomšič, Deputy Information Commissioner,
Information Commissioner, Republic of Slovenia)

[baskin]

και η μαλακία συνεχίζεται...

http://feeds.arstechnica.com/~r/arstech ... FBmaOVnSw/

[Κομπειλάδας]

Ξανα-ανακαλύπτοντας τον "ξεχασμένο" τροχό....

House of Lords committee: Right to be forgotten ruling 'unworkable' and 'wrong in principle'
Press Gazette, 30 July 2014



A House of Lords committee has said the ruling requiring search engines to give people the 'right to be forgotten' ruling is "unworkable" and "wrong in principle".

The European Court of Justice ruled in May that links to irrelevant and outdated material should be erased on request from search engines such as Google within the European Union.

The Lords Home Affairs, Health and Education EU Sub-Committee said in a new report that it was wrong to give search engines the power to decide what should or should not be deleted.

It also called on the UK Government to fight to ensure that updated EU regulations do not contain a "right to erasure".

Google has received more than 70,000 requests to block links in response to the ruling, which was based on Article 12 of the EU's directive on the protection of personal data, which was drawn up three years before the company was even founded.

In its report, based on evidence from data protection evidence, the Office of the Information Commissioner, justice minister Simon Hughes and Google itself, the committee of peers said the court's judgment had resulted in material being blocked on the basis of "vague, ambiguous and unhelpful" criteria which did not reflect the current state of information technology.

Peers warned the court against trying to "enforce the impossible".

Committee chair Baroness Prashar said: "Although this was a short inquiry, it is crystal clear that neither the 1995 Directive, nor the Court of Justice's interpretation of it reflects the incredible advancement in technology that we see today, over 20 years since the directive was drafted.

"Anyone anywhere in the world now has information at the touch of a button, and that includes detailed personal information about people in all countries of the globe."

Lady Prashar added: "We believe that the judgment of the court is unworkable for two main reasons.

"Firstly, it does not take into account the effect the ruling will have on smaller search engines which, unlike Google, are unlikely to have the resources to process the thousands of removal requests they are likely to receive.

"Secondly, we also believe that it is wrong in principle to leave search engines themselves the task of deciding whether to delete information or not, based on vague, ambiguous and unhelpful criteria, and we heard from witnesses how uncomfortable they are with the idea of a commercial company sitting in judgment on issues like that.

"We think there is a very strong argument that, in the new regulation, search engines should not be classed as data controllers, and therefore not liable as 'owners' of the information they are linking to. We also do not believe that individuals should have a right to have links to accurate and lawfully available information about them removed, simply because they do not like what is said.

"Technology advances at ever increasing speeds and it is incredibly difficult for legislation to keep up - never mind 'future proof' - the unforeseen leaps that technology is bound to make. However, what we can do is ensure that the regulations and directives that we do draft are sensible, taking into account the current situation and the likelihood of ever-increasing amounts of available data, and decide not to try and enforce the impossible."

Responding to the peers' report, Hughes said: "The Government wants to protect privacy rights and freedom of speech while taking action to bolster economic growth. Our greatest challenge is getting that balance right, and we welcome the support of the Lords for our position in negotiating new European data protection legislation.

"I agree that it is neither accurate nor helpful to say that the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice has given a right to be forgotten.

"We need to be clear that the judgment does not give individuals an unfettered right to have their personal data deleted from search engine results."

MORE ON THIS STORY:
* Google's chief legal officer admits 'right to be forgotten' removal mistakes have been made
* 'There is no right to be forgotten': Justice minister says Government is opposing rule in EU negotiations
* EU Court of Justice backs 'right to be forgotten' allowing individuals to force removal of links to web articles
* EU court ruling means accurate stories already in public domain could be placed beyond the reach of search engines

[baskin]

ε μα...

[Κομπειλάδας]

Ε, και σκατά. Άνοιξαν οι "ασκοί του Αιόλου":

Europe's "Right to be Forgotten" Law Kills Its First Wikipedia Page

Europe's controversial "Right to be forgotten" ruling has claimed its first Wikipedia page victim, according to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Wales told The Observer that the E.U. legislation is "completely insane and needs to be fixed."

The Wikipedia page will stay up, but it will not appear in Google search results. Google, like Wales, is opposed to the legislation, which is meant to give individuals more power over what information appears about them over the internet but is viewed by critics as censorship.

The identity of the page hasn't been disclosed, but we've asked Wikipedia for more information and will update when we hear back. [The Observer via BBC]

Image credit: Adapted from Shutterstock/Keith Bell

[baskin]

Δυστυχώς επαληθεύτηκα... Ήταν ηλίου φαεινότερο ότι θα καταλήξει έτσι.... Ελπίζω οι "υπέρμαχοι" να το κατάλαβαν έστω και τώρα...

Το κακό είναι ότι το συγκεκριμένο θέμα θα γυρίσει μπούμερανγκ σε άλλες πραγματικά ουσιαστικές προσπάθειες προστασίας των ψηφιακών δικαιωμάτων και της ιδιωτικότητας.

Πολύ φοβάμαι, ότι υπάρχει δάχτυλος....