> it is Google that is problematic in the sense that they seem to be of the opinion that the law does not apply to them.
Except the article explicitly states:
> Google refused to delete the search results. According to the Litigation Chamber, this was justified with regard to possible links with a political party
It seems to me that the law only applies to them. One should be punished for trying to use the law to request things be deleted that are not illegal.
> Keep in mind that Google would have lost nothing if they had just complied with the request
This is scary, one-sided thinking. Google loses their ability to determine if the request is even a legal one if they comply blindly. Similarly the public accepts unnecessary content censorship.
Of course, nobody would argue otherwise. The point was at least some of request was invalid by the law in Belgium. So a reasonable person might read the article and conclude "one side didn't abide by a partially invalid request" and "another side submitted a partially invalid request". I am lacking on details of the issue at hand, but it's clearly stated some of the request is invalid.
We have seen the consequences of invalid takedown requests in other situations (e.g. DMCA), and we should appreciate companies not just taking every takedown request at face value.
> The point was at least some of request was invalid by the law in Belgium.
From what little information was provided in the article, it sounded like Google maintained that these search results were exempt from the law, because they were political in nature, so they stood their ground.
However the DPA determined that these results were NOT exempt, due to the particular facts of the case (the results were "irrelevant and outdated"). So, keeping them up did not serve the public good (which, I resume, is the justification for these exemptions).
To me, it sounds like Google chose the wrong test case to stand their ground on. I appreciate them taking a stand on keeping information available if it is important.
But, crucially, Google claiming the request was invalid does not make it invalid; that's for the DPA to decide.
> But, crucially, Google claiming the request was invalid does not make it invalid; that's for the DPA to decide.
Except apparently the DPA requires google to decide. And hits them with a hefty fine if they pick the wrong answer. I believe this is the point being made in the thread. Google suffers all the risk.
I read about this case when it was first filed and pretty much predicted the outcome, the error Google made was that they get to interpret the law in the way that suits them best instead of in the way that the individual affected would be best served. But that's something that many large American corporations seem to have issues with. You can expect a lot of clashes like these unless the coin really drops: privacy is important, and the effect of a decision by a company on someone's private life matters a lot in Europe. And judges will be more than happy to charge tuition fees until that lesson has been learned.
Seconded. If the data subject mixed into the request all data about them that they don't like, it seems reasonable for Google to stop analyzing as soon as they find something out of line.
Except the article explicitly states:
> Google refused to delete the search results. According to the Litigation Chamber, this was justified with regard to possible links with a political party
It seems to me that the law only applies to them. One should be punished for trying to use the law to request things be deleted that are not illegal.
> Keep in mind that Google would have lost nothing if they had just complied with the request
This is scary, one-sided thinking. Google loses their ability to determine if the request is even a legal one if they comply blindly. Similarly the public accepts unnecessary content censorship.