Right to be forgotten, flood of requests to Google

After the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union - which has recognized it with force - begin to arrive in Big G ​​cancellation requests. Even Italy. Their stories

Right to be forgotten, flood of requests to Google

ERA predictable. They begin to rain on Google demands right to be forgotten after the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice has recognized that with unprecedented strength . The requests come from various people , also from Italy , it appears to Repubblica.it . There is one thing common: they are people who feel aggrieved in their rights to privacy - or in general to the personal dignity - from what appears on the web . And they want to make that Google no longer searchable disputed those pages . So far, Google has allowed this only in the face of a ruling of a court. The decision of the Court of Justice of the EU , however, could push an accelerated path . What is certain is that there are hoping the many who are preparing to flood Google with requests to "unsubscribe ."

There is for example the case of Cecilia C. . " Many years ago I gave an interview to a journalist friend of mine on a controversial clinical case that I had played a leading role ." Article, however, that then was " full of inaccuracies with all my sensitive data over and of course it was born a fuss ever seen." " Patience was a friend of mine , it was a local newspaper , and I let it go ." The problem started when the newspaper decided to network all its archives. "My story , with all of the above information ( which by the way is not unique to me, but also children of my family ) , it's over " available " to anyone willing to take the trouble of" googling " the my name. I tried to address the issue head on , I consulted the Privacy , I begged and threatened : nothing. Now, after this Court's decision, I hope I can finally get justice . "

Today 's game also request to Google through an attorney - in - an executive ministerial found myself accused of an online journal of embezzling public funds in a hospital. At the time the article was a suspect with some foundation ; But then the person has not received complaints about . He asked for a correction and then sued the newspaper for libel. While the process is still going on, asks Google to remove that item from their indexes.

As you can see , they open from the consequences of complex scenarios . The intervention on the search engines may even overlap with the work of the judiciary, be a shortcut compared to the process ( who has time and unpredictable outcomes ) and impact on the freedom of the press . It must be said that the judgment of the Court does not require Google to obey these demands and indeed specifies that you should not interfere with the work of journalism and facts of public importance . But it puts the decision in the hands of the engine , which could be attempted - to avoid litigation and fines - not to make too much resistance . Also because it is likely to be swamped with requests that are difficult to evaluate both of quantity and complexity. Reuters also reports that Google has begun to receive . Its chief executive Eric Schmidt said yesterday that " there are many open questions. Here there is a conflict between the right to be forgotten and the right to know ." According to Schmidt , the judgment has chosen a wrong balance between the two rights.

"The decision has significant implications on the way we handle removal requests ," said a Google spokesman . "It 's complicated , not least because of the large number of languages ​​involved and the need for accurate revisions. Soon as we have thought carefully about how you can work , which could take several weeks , we will notify users ."

Immediately after the ruling, many experts have accused of threatening major balances of the network. Vital to the freedom of expression and access to information.

But there is no consensus among jurists in this regard. " The right to be forgotten is right. 's Recognized by the Supreme Court , in Community law, the guarantor of privacy ," says Fulvio Sarzana, internet rights lawyer . "If you send a removal request on behalf of the right to be forgotten , I always responds that it has no jurisdiction and that there is need for a court's decision. Instead it acts if the request relates to the removal of Sarzana copyright -says . Then I say it is right that in practice is recognized only the copyright and not to the dignity of the person? " .

It is also of this opinion Daniel Minotti , another lawyer in the matter. "No one denies that there is a right to know certain information, but Centre should always remember that it must be balanced with other principles expressed by national or supranational cards ." " The right to be forgotten , just in the form view, it is inapplicable to the Net Indeed, the latter has an extraordinary memory that makes it urgent its more precise definition : in the interest of individuals who do not necessarily always have to succumb a compelling public law , or worse, than that of a private as opposed sneaky , "says Minotti .

But what will be the new equilibrium that will create a network between the two conflicting rights ? It will be left to Google, in fact, the will to decide on a case by case basis ? Are the nodes that will soon be home to roost and that perhaps deserve the intervention of the legislature , perhaps by the EU , where it is still pending on the new Data Protection Regulation : the first privacy legislation designed in the days of the internet.