Guidelines for the right to be forgot
On May 13, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) deliver a groundbreaking ruling introducing the right to be forgotten service (or: “the right to be de-Google”). Earlier this year, Holla Advocate wrote an article about this ruling, thus creating the option of having information that people.
Would rather not be confront with a number of year later be remove from the result of a search engine. First a quick refresher. The Court has not ruled that all information that someone would rather not be confront with should simply be remove on request.
Protection of personal data
Including the right to privacy and the protection of personal data – and the consequences that removal of a link may have for legitimate interests – such as the right to information – of internet users on the other. It is clear that the right to be forgot does not belong to everyone, but until recently it was not clear how exactly the balancing of interest should be made.
Moreover, because search engine deal with request in different way, guideline for the right to be forgot were introduce on November 26. These guideline – which draw up by the so-call “Article 29 working group” – are intend to offer search engine guideline when deciding whether or not to remove a search result.
Relevant Search Result
In the assessment, it is first of all important whether the relevant search result appear when the full name of an individual, or only part of the name or a “nickname”, is enter. After all, the Court ruled in the Google judgment that a search result linked to the full name in particular can have a major impact on someone’s private life.
Also read: right to be forgotten help
The guidelines
In the assessment, it is first of all important whether the relevant search result appear when the full name of an individual, or only part of the name or a “nickname”, is enter. After all, the Court ruled in the Google judgment that a search result linked to the full name in particular can have a major impact on someone’s private life.
It further follow from the guideline that search result that refer to inaccurate, misleading or incomplete information are more likely to be consider to be a major infringement of the privacy of the data subject. If there appears to be search results that refer to such information, it is therefore wise as a data subject to provide relevant background information with the request that shows inaccuracy.
Interest
Not only the private life of the person concerned plays a role in the balancing of interests, but also the question to what extent the information to which the search result refers is relevant for the internet user. That relevance depends first and foremost on the “age” of the data; the younger the data, the more relevant the content.
In addition, it is important whether the information relate to the ‘working life’ of the data subject; after all, the guideline state that, in general, information relating to a person’s private life is irrelevant. It also follow from the guideline that search result that refer to information that incite hate, or that can be regard as libel or slander, is not information to which an internet user is entitle at all time.
Regulate Profession
Finally, in the context of the balancing of interests, it is relevant whether the data subject fulfills a public role in society. According to the Court, the right to information of internet users therefore weighs more heavily if it concerns information about “known” persons. The guidelines also emphasize that the term “known” does not only include top football players, politicians and film stars, but also certain business people and persons who exercise regulated professions.
Also read: gdpr case studies
Conclusion
The guidelines appear to be a serious effort to have the search results request removed and streamline the subsequent process. “We want to create guidelines to help with difficult decisions, such as how the individual right to privacy in the internet age relates to the public interest,” said Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin of the French privacy watchdog
Please note that the guideline for the right to be forgot are neither exhaustive nor exhaustive. Whether the guideline have completely succeed in facilitating the decision of search engine will therefore have to be show in practice.