What is the "forgotten right" that is the basis for requesting Google to delete search results?


The European Court of Justice equivalent to the EU's Supreme Court ruled that "Person can request Google to delete search results on historical personal information that has not met the current situation over time." The judgment of this judgment which is evaluated as a very important judgment on the privacy right on the Internet Background "Right to be forgottenWhat kind of right is it?

(PDF) An internet search engine operator responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appears on web pages published by third parties

BBC News - EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case

Judgment that decided "flow" in Europe
In this case, the Spanish male who was seized at home confessed with Google by saying, "When searching for his name on Google, it is infringement of privacy right that a notice of auction appears in search results" thing. Google insists that "search engines are only providing links to information that can be browsed on the Internet, and that the deletion authority of information is only for those who publish the information, and correction of search results is censored." However, this claim has been dismissed.


In the judgment, "When retrieving the name of an individual, when a page including information on the person is displayed in the search result, and the privacy right contains information that can be infringed, the search result is provided We can ask the operator to modify and delete the search results ", and concluded that" links that have lost relevance or become obsolete should be deleted on request ". The judgment criteria that form the basis of this judgment are valid within the EU area, so virtually any service provided by global companies such as Google and Facebook within the EU area will be bound by this judgment standard.


The EU has been working on the formulation of information preservation rules to revise traditional personal information protection policy from 2012, but this policy is set forth as a policy to clarify individual "forgotten rights" , This ruling is a form that anticipated the flow of such law improvement. Vivian Redding, an EU Attorney General who has participated in the revision of the Information Conservation Rules,On FacebookI am welcoming the ruling by commenting "It is a clear victory in the protection of personal information of European people."

Right to be forgotten
What lies behind this ruling is "a forgotten right" about online privacy rights. "Right to be forgotten" can be defined as "right not to be searched for the information to a third party since the information is deleted from the Internet," this time, Google's search results Deletion can be said to be the scene where "right to be forgotten" was exercised.

The root of "the right to be forgotten" is recognized by the French law from the idea that continuation of criminal history should be avoided as it makes it difficult for social reintroduction to continue to be disclosed after the offender committed a crime It is said to be in "the right of forgetfulness" being done. There is information that does not want to continue to be published as past information on individuals as well as a criminal record and it is certain that the information uploaded on the Internet is kept permanently open to the public regardless of personal privacy rights As the infringement of the necessity of guaranteeing the necessity of guarantee is a "forgotten right", concrete methods of exercising "forgotten rights" include not only search service providers but also services on the Internet It is expected that you will be asked to delete your information to the administrator of the server that provides it.

ByKristina Alexanderson

A negative view on the exercise of "forgotten rights"
The idea that "right to be forgotten" should be recognized and the protection of privacy rights on the Internet should be appreciated widely has become mainstream in France and other European countries. However, in the United States that produces large IT companies such as Google, widely acknowledging widely forgotten rights broke a cautious position as it could impair the goodness of the Internet as a "place" that can maximize the freedom of expression Is not ... It is no wonder that this attitude is wonderful given the state of America in which state laws that disclose face photographs and personal information of sex offenders, for example, and obliging to wear GPS on train criminals are present.

In addition, against the assertion that "rights to be forgotten" is recognized as one of privacy rights, there is "Right to knowThere is also a criticism that it can infringe. Among the rulings issued by the European Court of Justice this time, unlike private individuals, in exceptional cases it is accepted that "right to know" may take precedence in "rights to be forgotten", but private individuals · It is clear that sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between public figures.

Furthermore, the ease of sharing information on the Internet may make it difficult to exercise "forgotten rights". For example, when considering a case where information on a specific individual is disclosed on the Internet and a third person who browses the information has duplicated / cited it in his / her blog, a specific individual asserts "right to be forgotten" If you allow blog service providers to modify the content of third-party blogs, it is clear that freedom of expression by third parties will be restricted. It is also clear that it is cruel to let the service provider decide which rights should be prioritized in this case.

ByBruno Cordioli

According to the judgment by the European Court of Justice this time it can be said that at least within the EU area it has become easier to ask for deletion of past personal information that has become inaccurate with the current situation over time and provides services on a global scale including Google and Facebook It is unlikely that Internet companies that deal with responding to requests for deletion of information from individuals will be avoided.

in Note, Posted by darkhorse_log