Look Mom, even the House of Lords says the #righttobeforgotten is not right

Westminster Palace, hosting the House of Lords

Westminster Palace, meeting place of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, London, UK

The relation between the UK and the EU is like that passionate thing usually developped between a cat and a dog. Historically since the very beginning of this love and hate affair in 1973, when London realized that the European project is a ‘good’ one, the UK always seeked to receive special attention, reminding to Brussels with each and every opportunity how special they are. The examples are numerous but it is not in the scope of this piece and neither the aim of my reader presently to get into historical details.

To me London, regarding its stance with the EU, has always been the elegant snobbish lady that was very difficult to approach. Is it a cultural thing of the Brits? Is it the attitude of a powerful nation that used to rule the world in the past, with an empire reaching all corners of the world? Is it because the British museum is so proud to exhibit all the trophees of that empire, cultural monuments stolen during war time from sites all over the world? Is it the sophisticated ‘self-righteous’ accent in English or the height of Big Ben? For all I know it can be all these things together or none; I am fine with it anyway. Europe absolutely needs the existence of strong cultures whatsoever. The real challenge is to engage them in the European.

The situation here is that currently we are less than a year before the UK elections in 2015 and the Scotish referendum that is coming in a couple of months from now. Cameron’s government has been using since the beginning, for quite some time now, this ‘special sentiment’ of the British society about themselves, in order to convince the electorate that the descendant of King William IV should continue his ‘conservative’ work for another five years. To increase partisanship among his voters he has been threatening to leave the EU asap, he has fiercely fought against Juncker’s candidature for the Presidency and recently has found another opportunity to exert his criticism about how wrong things are at the capital of Belgium.

I am referring here to the discussed report issued by the House of Lords only yesterday about the “right to be forgotten” ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This newspaper has written quite a few Stings about this European ‘fiasko’ that endangers the freedom of Search Engines and the Internet in the Old Continent. Hence, it was an ‘easy one’, for the UK to find another spike in the relations between London and Brussels. Only that this time it is a justified one.

“We believe that the judgement of the court is unworkable for two main reasons: Firstly it does not take into account the effect the ruling will have on smaller search engines which unlike Google are unlikely to have the resources to process the thousands of removal requests they are likely to receive. Secondly, we also believe that it is wrong in principle to leave search engines themselves the task of deciding whether to delete information or not, based on vague, ambiguous and unhelpful criteria, and we heard from witnesses how uncomfortable they are with the idea of a commercial company sitting in judgment on issues like that.” This is a statement made by Usha Prashar, the chairwoman of the House of Lords Subcommittee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, the subcommittee that is responsible for the publication of the report.

Well, let’s be fair here. There is nothing wrong with the cricism exerted above on the “right ot be forgotten” as well as there is nothing new about it. The literature produced after this “unfortunate” ECJ ruling of last May, by all the sane people that know a thing or two about the way the Web operates and the core role of Search Engines , is abundant. And the ‘butterfly effect’ initially began by the case of Spanish Mario Costeja, who wanted and succeeded one single short 1998 article describing his social security debts to be erased from Google results for ever, since he has no debts now. Seriously? Why didn’t he grab the phone and make a phone call to the publisher of that article in the first place? For God’s sake. What does Google have to do with it, if the publisher’s website has good backlink strategy that brings articles in a high rank?

Not to mention here that after this ‘prude’ ruling more than 70,000 requests have been processed by the Google guys, claims of random people asking random stuff to be excluded by the search engine results. Let me underline here also what has been happening since May and was reported in my previous article as well: “Sources also claim that many of them consist of previously convicted criminals that do not want their bad deeds to be on top of Google when someone Googles their names. My goodness! Can ECJ or any sane data privacy activist weigh the implications that something like that has to the society? Do they have the right to forget or do we have the right to remember in this case?”. No additional comment is needed to be made here two months later.

Let me also touch here the point of Mrs Prashar from the House of Lords subcomittee that search engines are overloaded with the unholy burden to make a choice on what to source in the results and what not. Again, although that this point, is not new, it is always an important one. I mean, how can you give the search engine the ability and authority to process all these claims? Some of them could probably be unreasonable for all I know, like a request to delete a brunette photo of a currently blonde lady. It is not the search engine’s job to do that folks! How many people do they need to hire to read those kind of claims, should they be lawyers, should they be priests, should they seek approval by whom? Nobody said anything about that. We just let a single case to change the charter of the European Internet for no reason I believe.

Again, the British report is to the point and accurate, only that it came two months later. Apparently, the UK government is against the inclusion of the “right to be forgotten” inside the paleolithic data protection EU regulation that dates back to 1995. Who can blaim them? I know I can’t. Simon Hughes, minister at the UK Ministry of Justice, said to the subcommittee earlier this month (9 july): “The U.K. would not want what is currently in the draft, which is the right to be forgotten, to remain as part of that proposal. We want it to be removed. We think it is the wrong position. I do not think, both as an individual and a minister, we want the law to develop in the way that is implied by this judgment, which is that you close down access to information in the EU that is open in the rest of the world.” Bearing in mind how the House of Lords is comprised of, by hereditary members or apointed members by the government, the report’s publication a couple of weeks after that statement let’s just say did not happen by accident.

But the point here is that, beyond any political scope that this report has for the UK government, actually the man is right. Let me quote here an excerpt of my May piece on this hot matter : “I would like to remind here to the judges of ECJ the huge “right to be remembered” and their duty to compose the balanced magic formula that will have the right significant coefficients to decide which of the two “rights” prevail per case. Setting free an immense flow of random claims to a search engine, with no specific legal frame on how to process and react on them, is not serious enough, I think. What is next? Should we expect in Europe soon the story of Google China to be repeated? Not to forget that there the search engine giant refused to filter its results according to the policy of the Chinese government and hence they had to move to the ‘more liberal’ Hong Kong to do business. Do you see this as an extreme? Give Google 1.000.000 EU claims per day to filter anything from ugly photos to content about ex-cons and I will tell you then if they will stay in the Old Continent or they will leave us to the hands of smaller alternatives like Bing of Microsoft. And even in that case, what if Bing starts getting claims after that to filter Web content? Then courts will rule search engines and we will be protagonists of a Spielberg movie where in 2100 we will all look and act the same, since we will all have access to the same info.”

So, yes, the freedom of Internet is at stake here, not by one single ECJ ruling but by the importance it has been given and its supporters around Europe that this is the right thing to do. For all I know it is possible that the judges do not even know how the spider of a search engine works. The search engines should be allowed to do their work and scan information on the web according to its significance. Nothing more and nothing less. If there is a different proposition, like for instance a proposal by the Commission or another House of Lords ‘report’, then it has to figure it out properly and elaborate in detail on how something like that would be feasible. Then share it to with the citizens of Europe and the media. And then be ready for a hell of a criticism.

I believe most of the reasonable people in Europe do not dream of search engines that are controlled or filtered. It is a mistake of the EU to let this matter escalate in abyss like that and even give the good chance to our ‘neighbours’ to criticize. Someone from the EU needs to take the lead and close this matter now before Europe is judged as the only part of the western world where search engines get filtered.

That on its own could be a good reason for me to relocate to the other side of the atlantic. What about you?

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Advertising

Featured Stings

Euro-Mediterranean Assembly fixes its permanent seat in Rome

African cities will double in population by 2050. Here are 4 ways to make sure they thrive

Global Citizen-Volunteer Internships

Back to the future: flying cars are becoming a reality

Is Eurozone heading for disinflation?

Fostering global citizenship in medical students through exchanges

The miserables and the untouchables of the economic crisis

Disintegrating Tories will void May’s pledge for Brexit deal in seven weeks

We’ll succeed together

Fostering global citizenship in medicine

Counting unemployment in the EU: The real rate comes to anything between 16.1% and 20.6%

Christine Lagarde: the three priorities for the global economy

European Court rules that ECB’s OMT program of 2012 is OK; not a word from Germany about returning the Greek 2010 courtesy

New EU rules ensure better protection for 120 million holidaymakers this summer

How the EU crisis hit countries saved the German and French mega-banks from bankruptcy and still pay the costs

For video game addiction, now read official ‘gaming disorder’: World Health Organization

What next after more sanctions against Russia, will the Ukrainian civil war end?

Jeroen Dijsselbloem new Eurogroup president

What can stop the ‘too big to fail’ bankers from terrorising the world?

Brain Drain remains a crucial and unresolved issue

Presidents of pan-European youth organisations call upon the European Council to preserve the Schengen principles

Can Obama attract Iran close to the US sphere of influence?

Obese people more likely to smoke, says new gene research: WHO

EU Summit consumed by the banks

Nuclear test ban treaty critical to global collective security – UN chief

EU-wide penalties for money laundering: deal with Council

We can build a carbon-neutral world by 2050. Here’s how

Spanish and Polish voters are crying out for an imminent European change while US urge now Germany to change route

The Swiss will pay dearly for voting out fellow Europeans

Millions of young lives ‘at risk’ says UN labour chief, calling for an end to child labour

UNICEF appeals for end to ‘war on children’ in Syria and Yemen

GSMA Mobile 360 Series – Europe – 14 June 2016

Be a part of the World Forum on Future Trends in Defence and Security

This is how people in Europe are helping lead the energy charge

New Report Offers Global Outlook on Efforts to Beat Plastic Pollution

UN says ‘many humanitarian achievements’, one year after ouster of ISIL from Mosul

UN mission welcomes Afghan government’s announcement of Eid holiday ceasefire

INTERVIEW: Advancing human rights, a ‘never ending process’ says new UN rights chief

‘Virginity testing’: a human rights violation, with no scientific basis – UN

Draghi joined Macron in telling Germany how Eurozone must be reformed

Embrace ‘people-centered multilateralism,’ UN-civil society forum urges

‘Safe Eurobonds’: a new trick to betray the south euro area countries

IMF: When high yield goes boom

EU and India re-open talks over strategic partnership while prepare for a Free Trade Agreement

At the edge of humanity: refugee healthcare in Greece and the EU

Further reforms can foster more inclusive labour markets in The Netherlands

France v Croatia: How the World Cup finalists stack up off the pitch

New chapters in EU-China trade disputes

Trade, taxes and other takeaways from Li Keqiang’s speech to the World Economic Forum

The EU Commission lets money market funds continue the unholy game of banks

These countries are ranked highest – and lowest – for human development

It’s not summer holidays what lead to the bad August of the German economy

Zuckerberg preaches that Artificial Intelligence will protect Data Privacy in Facebook whereas Verhofstadt demands the big European state to take charge

How Hawaii plans to be the first US state to run entirely on clean energy

China-EU Summit on 16-17 July 2018: “Work together to address common challenges”, by China’s Ambassador to the EU

Businesses succeed internationally

The EU risks trade relations with China over the Tata hype about steel

When it comes to envirotech adoption, NGOs can lead us out of the woods

Subsidiarity and Proportionality: Task Force presents recommendations on a new way of working to President Juncker

Slight easing of G20 GDP growth in first quarter of 2018

More Stings?

Speak your Mind Here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s