Things that caught our eye
Like all of you, our team here at theiii were devasted to hear about the passing of Bowie… However, without much ado we do not want to refrain from sharing this piece on the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP)’s Website written by .
So check out “David Bowie just proved that privacy is not dead” to get the answer to our Question and read a heartwarming piece about David Bowie.
We’ll be back soon!
Data Protection, David Bowie, IAPP, privacy
Blog
Disclaimer: Although the issue of memory in a digital society is a very cutting-edge topic, this report can be rather confusing for anyone who hasn’t been thinking about remembering and forgetting in the digital age for as long as I have, I apologize for that. For more insight on the ideas behind this workshop and the project run by the Research Center for Information Law (FIR-HSG) at the University of St.Gallen, Switzerland please take a look at our Wiki.
Last month, I organized and attended the concluding workshop for our (my professors’ and my) project called “Remembering and Forgetting in the Digital Age“. We invited renown scholars from all over the world who in one way or the other deal with memory in the digital age and we were very happy to host guests such Urs Gasser, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, Michael Arnold, Wesley Shumar and many more. More…
Data Protection, freedom of speech, Memory, privacy, right to be forgotten, value of data
Things that caught our eye
Max Mosley is is the former president of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and has been fighting Google for a couple of years now. He has been trying to sue Google for displaying unfortunate pictures of himself at – let’s call it – a”sex party”. According to Anya Proops, on Panopticon, the question Mosley brought to court against Google
“is an important issue for those data subjects who garner significant public attention within the online environment, as was the case with Mr Mosley. The difficulty for such individuals is that online stories or comments about them can proliferate on the internet at such a rate that they cannot practicably achieve the online amnesia they crave.”
On the other hand, public figures like Mosley will always be in the spotlight and of public interest which is why they probably should refrain from taking part in orgies or alike, just saying…
Just last year, a court in Hamburg decided that Google was no longer allowed to display these unflattering and possibly damaging (to Mosley’s reputation) photos. And last week, Mosley finally settled with Google and everyone is hoping that this is the last we hear about Mosley v Google. It is definitely not the last time we will be discussing the European “Right to be Forgotten”!
Data Protection, Forgetting, Google, privacy, Public figures, right to be forgotten
Blog
Two weeks ago the Article 29 Working Party (WP29) issued Guidelines on the Implementation of Google Spain judgment.
Let’s have a look at how often the WP29 elaborates on the delicate balance between oblivion, erasure or forgetting and the individuals’ right to freedom of expression. More…
Data Protection, Freedom of Expression, privacy, right to be forgotten, Right to Remember
Things that caught our eye
In his open letter to Google John M. Simpson, Privacy Project Director of Consumer Watchdog, is asking them to implement the EU’s “Right to be Forgotten” for US users on a voluntary basis too. His main argument why Google.com should do so, is that removals of links are not automated. Google has to strike a balance between the interests involved and seems to be doing so quite successfully, as Simpson states:
“I was heartened to see – based on Google’s own numbers – that you appear able to strike this balance in Europe and it does not appear to be an undue burden on your resources.”
Data Protection, Google, privacy, right to be forgotten
Things that caught our eye
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EUDPS), who “is an independent supervisory authority devoted to protecting personal data and privacy and promoting good practice in the EU institutions and bodies”, recently gave a speech in Mauritius on account of the 36th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners . In his speech (PDF), the EUDPS Peter Hustinx, dealt with the difficulties of enforcing privacy laws which are restricted to territorial borders in a world of “borderless Internet technology”.
Two of the examples he gave of problems in this area I would like to highlight here. In relation to the Internet of Things (IoT) he mentioned:
“[W]e have heard at this conference that very few objects or devices for the future IoT are being devised with serious attention for privacy implications. Therefore, boxes with diverse gadgets, just being sent off to other parts of the world, without any thought given or information provided on privacy aspects, are simply a disaster happening in slow motion.”
Futhermore, in relation to the Google Spain Case and the Right To Be Forgotten, on which Stefan Kulk & Rehana Harasgama here at the iii wrote earlier, the EUDPS also had some comments:
[T]he highly critical and sometimes aggressive reactions to the recent CJEU judgment in the Google Spain case show a disconnect between the assumption that available information can be re-used and the requirement that processing of personal information must always be legitimate and may be subject to rights of erasure or objection by the data subjects.
The remainder of the speech deals with questions on feasibility of privacy in a borderless world, which provides for an interesting status quo of what is done in this area.
Read the full speech here.
Interesting final note. Peter Hustinx, is currently the EU Data Protection Supervisor, but the procedure for appointing his successor is in full swing. Latest development here is that his current assistant, Giovanni Buttarelli, has received the most votes in the Civil Liberties Committee last week, and will therefore be the most likely successor of Mr. Hustinx for the role of EU Data Protection Supervisor.
Image Credit: “Internet of Things” by Wilgengebroed on Flickr – Cropped and sign removed from Internet of things signed by the author.jpg. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Blog
Damian George and I recently published an article on the right to be forgotten respectively the right of oblivion and erasure in the Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law (JIPITEC). In this publication we discuss different cases handled by French, German and Italian courts and attempt to understand how the different legal backgrounds have led to a diverse implementation of the European data protection principles into national legislation.
We draw different insights from our comparative case law analysis and would like to share some of them here. More…
Data Protection, ECJ C-131/21, Erasure, Notice and Take Down, Oblivion, right to be forgotten
Blog
As the usage of Apps and other web-based services grows on a daily basis, using data as a currency has been the talk of the town – or more the globe. According to IBM which was quoted in an article written in 2013 by three consultants working for Deloitte: “Ninety percent of the data in the world today was created in the last two years” and “Between now and 2020, the global volume of digital data is expected to multiply another 40 times or more”. More…