Google NOT REQUIRED to wipe 'sensitive' search results after all

But MUST adhere to EU data law, says Court of Justice advocate general


The European Union's Court of Justice has agreed with Google by saying that search engine providers should not be held responsible for the type of personal data that appears on web pages it processes.

Even though Google is required to comply with European privacy law, the company is not obliged to remove sensitive legal content from its search index, the EU's advocate general Niilo Jääskinen said in a court opinion today.

The court explained Jääskinen's opinion (PDF, 3 pages), which is likely to be adopted by the EU:

It is possible that the secondary liability of the search engine service providers under national law may lead to duties amounting to blocking access to third party websites with illegal content such as web pages infringing intellectual property rights or displaying libellous or criminal information.

In contrast, requesting search engine service providers to suppress legitimate and legal information that has entered the public domain would entail an interference with the freedom of expression of the publisher of the web page.

In his view, it would amount to censorship of his published content by a private party.

Judges in the Court of Justice are not required to be bound by the advocate general's views. They will deliberate the case before passing judgment.

Jääskinen's opinion followed a man complaining to Google's Spain office in 2010 about search results that showed a link to a newspaper article which was first printed in 1998, reporting on a real-estate auction connected with attachment proceedings prompted by social security debts.

The man had asked Google to kill the links to the story after he discovered it returned links directly to the article when his "name and surnames" were entered into the search engine.

He later lodged a complaint with Spain's data authority against both the newspaper publisher and Google, which was partially upheld by the watchdog.

Google was told to delete the data from its search index and to prevent any future access to the newspaper article. However, the complaint against the publisher was rejected on the grounds that the story's appearance in the press was "legally justified".

Since then, Google has appealed against the Spanish regulator's decision on two separate occasions. All of which led to that country's court referring a number of questions to the EU's advocate general.

The outcome of the Court of Justice's ruling will set a precedent for many similar cases currently wading their way through various judicial systems in the 27-member bloc.

One such high-profile case involves the former Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile boss Max Mosley, who is suing Google in a Hamburg court, claiming that Mountain View is breaking German privacy laws by continuing to host a video which shows him engaging in a thrash'n'tickle session with a group of prostitutes.

However, the opinion was not all good news for Google, given that Jääskinen said that the US company was bound by data legislation in Europe. That's because Google - which is, after all, an advertising giant - processes ads within the EU.

Here's how the Court of Justice explained the advocate general's position on the matter:

The entity in charge of keyword advertising is linked to the internet search engine. This entity needs a presence on national advertising markets and that is why Google has established subsidiaries in many Member States.

Hence, in his view, it must be considered that an establishment processes personal data if it is linked to a service involved in selling targeted advertising to inhabitants of a Member State, even if the technical data processing operations are situated in other Member States or third countries.

All of which means the screws are slowly being tightened on tech companies from outside the EU who process European citizens' data.

Google, meanwhile, is also having to face off data protection authorities in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands over the ad giant's decision to change its privacy policy in March 2012 - which the French watchdog has already said breaches its data law. ®

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading
  • Meta hires network chip guru from Intel: What does this mean for future silicon?
    Why be a customer when you can develop your own custom semiconductors

    Analysis Here's something that should raise eyebrows in the datacenter world: Facebook parent company Meta has hired a veteran networking chip engineer from Intel to lead silicon design efforts in the internet giant's infrastructure hardware engineering group.

    Jon Dama started as director of silicon in May for Meta's infrastructure hardware group, a role that has him "responsible for several design teams innovating the datacenter for scale," according to his LinkedIn profile. In a blurb, Dama indicated that a team is already in place at Meta, and he hopes to "scale the next several doublings of data processing" with them.

    Though we couldn't confirm it, we think it's likely that Dama is reporting to Alexis Bjorlin, Meta's vice president of infrastructure hardware who previously worked with Dama when she was general manager of Intel's Connectivity group before serving a two-year stint at Broadcom.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022