'Inaccurate' media misleads public on European Court's Google ruling

Why would the advertising giant say the sky is falling?


“Inaccurate reporting” of Google’s fight against privacy rights in Europe last month risks misleading the public, says the Information Commissioner's Office – which safeguards those rights in the UK.

When a Spanish citizen demanded the removal of links in search results to news articles mentioning an old debt, Google claimed it wasn't subject to European regulations so it didn't have to do anything. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) disagreed, insisting the US web giant falls under the Continent's laws.

So, as so many have claimed, that's a new, out of the blue, "right to be forgotten"? No, a spokesman for the ICO told The Register.

“It’s not a ‘right to be forgotten’ – there is not an absolute right to have information removed,” the spokesman said, adding that “inaccurate reporting” on the ECJ ruling was regrettable.

“Irrespective of any newspaper article, the Data Protection Act regulates Google [in the UK],” he added, meaning there are already rules in place that Google must stick to.

Where the inaccuracies stem from

In May, the ECJ, the highest legal authority in Europe, threw out Google’s long battle to be exempt from Article 7, the “right to a private life”, of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The company had brought the case against the Spanish data regulator and the citizen who wanted the research results removed.

Google had structured itself to evade European law, and had argued that it wasn’t processing information in Europe – and wasn’t even processing personal information. The court rejected these arguments.

Yet much of the reporting of that outcome perpetuates two inaccuracies. The first is that Google is now the ultimate arbiter of privacy complaints – and therefore faces a new and onerous additional workload. This is incorrect: each member state’s data protection regulator is the ultimate authority, so the workload falls on them. Google can reject all complaints at minimal expense, if it chooses to do so. It can also challenge any regulator's ruling.

The second falsehood is that the ECJ created a new, no-arguments "right to be forgotten" in the EU, which means any paedophile or bankrupt person can have information about their sexual convictions or financial affairs removed from Google’s search engine in Europe.

This is incorrect because the ECJ emphatically stated that removals could not jeopardise the public interest. And a pedophile's convictions are a matter of public interest.

As the ICO told us, the often-cited example of a former student who committed an indiscretion a decade ago, but who today finds it featured at the top of the Google’s search results, was what the ECJ had in mind.

“The case of the student is the perfect example of why we support the ECJ ruling,” the spokesman told us.

The deputy Information Commissioner explained the office’s view in a blog post on May 20.

However the sensationalist and inaccurate media coverage has encouraged a flood of complaints – which Google now appears to be exploiting in what looks like a calculated PR campaign. It looks a lot like a Son of SOPA: the advertising giant hopes to influence legislation by presenting it as a “crisis” for freedom of expression, and the entire internet.

Last week, Google assembled its own Supreme Court of hand-picked sympathetic outsiders, including Wikipedia supremo Jimmy Wales. After the ruling was announced, Wales incorrectly claimed the ECJ's decision affected journalists. He reacted by labelling criticism of his misunderstanding as "ad hominem" attacks on himself.

Alongside Wales, other advisors include Frank La Rue – a Guatemalan labour rights lawyer (oh yes) who was once a UN observer (or "rapporteur") – and a philosophy professor at the Google-funded Oxford Internet Institute. Their views are likely to align with Mountain View’s.

Professor Luciano Floridi duly told The Independent newspaper that the sky was falling.

The ruling had swung the balance of power towards the powerful and the censorious, the paper reported. Privacy and data protection laws would now need to be rewritten.

The resulting Independent front-page

The professor told The Register last night that the Indie had over-emphasised his remarks. "The title doesn't exactly represent my thoughts. The idea that everything is now new is a bit too polarized," he said.

However, he did back changing data protection regulation, but declined to say how. We'll post our full interview with Professor Floridi shortly.

Next page: Not very appealing

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Heart FM's borkfast show – a fine way to start your day

    Jamie and Amanda have a new co-presenter to contend with

    There can be few things worse than Microsoft Windows elbowing itself into a presenting partnership, as seen in this digital signage for the Heart breakfast show.

    For those unfamiliar with the station, Heart is a UK national broadcaster with Global as its parent. It currently consists of a dozen or so regional stations with a number of shows broadcast nationally. Including a perky breakfast show featuring former Live and Kicking presenter Jamie Theakston and Britain's Got Talent judge, Amanda Holden.

    Continue reading
  • Think your phone is snooping on you? Hold my beer, says basic physics

    Information wants to be free, and it's making its escape

    Opinion Forget the Singularity. That modern myth where AI learns to improve itself in an exponential feedback loop towards evil godhood ain't gonna happen. Spacetime itself sets hard limits on how fast information can be gathered and processed, no matter how clever you are.

    What we should expect in its place is the robot panopticon, a relatively dumb system with near-divine powers of perception. That's something the same laws of physics that prevent the Godbot practically guarantee. The latest foreshadowing of mankind's fate? The Ethernet cable.

    By itself, last week's story of a researcher picking up and decoding the unintended wireless emissions of an Ethernet cable is mildly interesting. It was the most labby of lab-based demos, with every possible tweak applied to maximise the chances of it working. It's not even as if it's a new discovery. The effect and its security implications have been known since the Second World War, when Bell Labs demonstrated to the US Army that a wired teleprinter encoder called SIGTOT was vulnerable. It could be monitored at a distance and the unencrypted messages extracted by the radio pulses it gave off in operation.

    Continue reading
  • What do you mean you gave the boss THAT version of the report? Oh, ****ing ****balls

    Say what you mean

    NSFW Who, Me? Ever written that angry email and accidentally hit send instead of delete? Take a trip back to the 1990s equivalent with a slightly NSFW Who, Me?

    Our story, from "Matt", flings us back the best part of 30 years to an era when mobile telephones were the preserve of the young, upwardly mobile professionals and fixed lines ruled the roost for more than just your senior relatives.

    Back then, Matt was working for a UK-based fixed-line telephone operator. He was dealing with a telephone exchange which served a relatively large town. "I ran a reasonably ordinary, read-only command to interrogate a specific setting," he told us.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021