The balancing was difficult and dragged on for three instances. Now the Federal court of justice (BGH) has ruled: The right to information to the Public outweighs the right of those Concerned to the protection of your personal data. Thus, the court dismissed the action brought by the former business Manager of a Hessian welfare organisation against the Internet giant Google. The search engine giant may still view older press reports about a disease of the man, and a financial deficit of the Association in its hit list.
To search engine operators, it is thus, according to the BGH, no automatic “right to be Forgotten” on the Internet. Whether Links to critical articles from the hit list to be removed, is always of a comprehensive fundamental right balance in individual cases depending.
A second case, the right to be Forgotten, the court submitted to the European court of justice. There, the truth of the on the hit list shown in the reports is controversial.
The judge’s decision was expected with great interest. Because it is in Germany, the first high court judgment, and since 2018 in the whole of the EU data protection basic regulation applies. Which gives the citizens the information to companies far-reaching rights. Crucial article 17, is Christian Solmecke explains.
The Cologne-based experts in Internet law, which States that “each Person is a data controller can require that personal data relating to you, will be deleted immediately.”
fork in the road in 2014
had Paved the way to this principle, the right to be Forgotten ruling by the European court of justice (ECJ) in 2014. The starting point was a case, typical of many others: A Spaniard had filed a complaint against Google, because when you Type his Name in the search engine prominently on an article in the newspaper La Vanguardia has been linked. It was reported about a foreclosure auction; the man was named as the owner of the property in particular.
in the Meantime, but a good decade had passed; the man was already free of debt. Through the Google search results, he feared economic disadvantages and complained. The Luxembourg judges gave the man the right. Since then, citizens of search engines may require the deletion of sensitive personal information.
- recommended reading: “Infodemie” roll over the world: Europe has now a sharp sword
of close to a Million removal requests
use of This right of EU citizens to take active, such as the Google Transparency Report shows. Since 2014, therefore, almost a Million people of Google have called for the deletion of nearly four million Links from the search results. In almost half of the cases the search engine provider to the claims. Most often, Links to Facebook have been removed. About every sixth URL was deleted after complaints from Germany.
success with his request for deletion was a teacher, for example. The Link to an article about his conviction over a decade ago because of a minor offense was reported, not likely to show up in the search results to his name. Could come through a rape victim. The Link to a newspaper article about the crime was removed.
conversely, a Clergyman, failed with his request to delete two news articles from the Google search, in which it was accusations of sexual abuse against him. The reason: Google considers the Information as relevant for the public life of the clergy. And that The Church had not completed the investigation of the Case.
the virtue of forgetting
“Forget is a feature, not a bug”, is Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, in principle, compared to the DW. The Internet researchers from the Oxford Internet Institute is one of the pioneers of the “Right to be Forgotten”. In his book “Delete. The virtue of forgetting in the digital age” was presented by Mayer-Schönberger in 2010, what dangers are associated with the limitless storage of data and their discoverability through search engines.
Because with a click of the mouse events in the present bring, forget a analog society long ago or never would have found. The Internet is documented, but without distinction to all – without providing the context.
Forgetting can be as important – for example, for a fruitful new beginning. The already knew in front of more than three and a half centuries, the diplomats negotiated in Münster at the end of the thirty years ‘ war the peace of Westphalia. Of writes less than a “never-ending Forget and Forgive all that has happened since the beginning of this dispute from one side or the other as an enemy.”
disease of remembrance
In medicine, there is an analogy for the inability of the Internet to manage memories make more sense As “hyperthymesia“ is described the Sufferings of the people who can’t forget anything, not even the smallest little things. They are constantly overwhelmed by their memories. Constantly long Past, a new life. Taxes you can’t your memories.
This disease occurs in humans is extremely rare. But through the Internet and search engines whole societies suffer in the meantime: – relevant can no longer be distinguished from the unimportant, Obsolete, Outdated.
stopgap right
So much Internet expert Mayer-happy schönberger also on the attention that gives in the process before the Federal court of justice of the importance of forgetting in the digital age: Legal solutions are just a stopgap. Because “only those who can afford it, this right to demand and enforce”.
attorney Solmecke confirmed: anyone Who wants to can Google a Link from the search results list, delete, need to bring a lot of patience. “It is not uncommon that Google is responding in the case of a deletion request, only once, or completely cross provides,” the expert on Internet law.
practice of madness
Viktor Mayer-Schönberger argues for a “practice of forgetting“, promoted by means of technical processes and tools, a digital expiration date.
What he means, explained Mayer-Schönberger on the example of the Messaging App Snapchat. The delete shared content automatically after a short period of time. And is thus an example of a Form of communication that is fleeting and forget it.
going In this direction in the era of Big Data and machine learning, modern research, has observed, the native Austrian: “The best Algorithms of machine learning are those that take into account old data is less strong – or forgotten“. Perhaps do to the short or long term processes such as in front of the Federal court of justice all by itself.
See you in FOCUS Online, you can See in the
*The contribution of “BGH judgment is Not a blanket “right to be Forgotten”” published by Deutsche Welle. Contact with the executives here.
