Notes from the 33rd meeting of Data Protection Authority in Mexico City, Mexico, November 2 and 3, 2011-11-02
Panel on “Right to be Forgotten”
Lack of technological expertise in regulators limits their ability to be effective on issues like “Right to be Forgotten”
Businesses should work on RTBF as much as they enable business access to information. Can’t get away with “it’s too difficult.”
Connects the problem with intrusive measures from intellectual-property holders who want user data.
Meg Ambrose – U Colorado Atlas Institute, Privacy & Information Lifecycles
(PPT) - based on previous assessment, we decide on expiration value of information
Persistence on the Web – only 10-15% of content lasts a year; halflife: site 556 days, URL 2 months, content 2 days
Feasibility of Forgetting:
Number of search engines
Unindexing
Etc.
Future considerations: new technology creates new technologies and new forms of access (facial recognition)
Diverse norms and standards
José Luis Rodríguez director APD España
Sí es posible el derecho al olvido como lo entiende la APD España
Cierta prudencia en Internet es recomendable pero el precio no puede ser la limitación del desarrollo de la persona. Más citas a Mayer-Schoenberger. La memoria permanente no debe llevar a la autocensura y sí debe ser posible superar las faltas del pasado.
Solicitudes de remoción de datos que ha resuelto la APD: exterrorista, mujer víctima de agresión sexual, viejas sanciones penales o administrativas, etc. a los que “el pasado los alcanza”.
Derechos ARCO, en especial CO, son ejercitables frente a páginas Web y buscadores.
A esto se refiere su interpretación del RTBF: protección de derechos de cancelación y oposición en el nuevo mundo de Internet. No a censura ni a borrar la historia.
Si se apoya el caso, no se pide alterar la publicación original, ni que no se la pueda seguir consultando, sino sólo que utilice los protocolos de exclusión para que la información no sea recolectada por los buscadores. Esto se refiere sobre todo a los boletines oficiales, en los diarios, no se exige pero se pide. Y además, se le solicita lo mismo a los buscadores.
No hay automatismos sino que se ponderan los derechos e intereses en juego atendiendo a las circunstancias.
BOE atiende los requerimientos de la APD y aplica el “protocolo TXT”. Los BOs de regiones se van sumando. Los periódicos muy a medias pero algunos de los de tirada nacional ya obedecen.
En cuanto a buscadores, algunos aceptan (Yahoo!) y Google se niega sistemáticamente a cumplir las resoluciones de la APD y las impugna en tribunales.
Peter Fleischer, Google:
Much of the RTBF discusión is rhetoric. With zillions of webpages inevitably some people will be harmed.
The question is whether we can come up with a topology that makes sense, are whether some are censorship. “Privacy is the new black” in censorship.
Data portability/data liberation. See and move around, and delete, your personal data; industry should agree to respect such requests. That’s not where the disagreements come in.
The disagreement is where you ask someone to delete someone else’s data. Conflict of rights, different in different countries.
Privacy vs. freedom of speech balance differs by country.
“right answer” is: publisher should decide whether they will publish someone else’s content; and whether they want their content indexed, obey orders, etc.
Google-APD disagreement: whether a DPA should be able to order a SEARCH ENGINE to delete content that is otherwise legal. Google is not making a decision on whether the publisher should publish, protect from search, or remove.
Fundamental disagreement of principle: do not turn into an instrument of censorship.
All cases between Google & APD before courts are unresolved, and may be referred to European Court of Justice.
Another piece of RTBF: need to update EU principles of data protection, or just use them in more refined way? Inclined to the latter.
Facebook rep (subst for Richard Allen) Elliot Schrage:
Facebook is devoted to make it easy for people to tell their own stories (personal, professional, political, etc.)
Balance between RTBF and right to be heard.
We believe that people own their content; they have the opportunity to revise and delete, and have introduced tools to improve.
People can take their information elsewhere (Download Facebook) and also fully deleted.
Controversy is not there, it is about content about me generated by others. It is a balance that societies have to make.
This is a very ripe source for innovation, not hard rules. New feature: “Social Report”. Create a direct line of communication with the publisher of the content instead of going to authorities, DPAs, etc. 50% of the requests have been honored.
Younger users have even higher rates of removal or revision, i.e. young people are more sensitive to the concerns of others.
Marie-Helene Boulanger, European Commission – RTBF will be a key point of reform; intends to give individual control of the information about them. Some RTBF already exists.
New factor to be taken into account is vulnerability of younger generation.
Something new and beyond data protection: in law enforcement, when someone has paid his debt to society, their record is removed in order to make rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
So EU/EC looking at:
retention period (implies proportionality, in practice quite difficult, so needs reinforcing),
right to full deletion/prevent disclosure and to prevent dissemination
erasure from search engines and other public communication tools.
(New) issues:
Data minimization
Expiration dates
Information for individuals: what data are kept, who is doing what with my data, what is the purpose, the retention period, etc.
What RTBF is NOT (misconceptions)
Not a right to hide
Freedom of speech – expression of opinion, ideas; to use data for artistic and research data,
historical data
Not a right to rewrite history
RTBF is fundamental for the EU.
Nigel (Australia, moderator)
Australia has something like RTBF since 10 years ago, mostly as a data-minimization principle.
RTBF is a cumulative effect of several existing principles
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario